Google Will Stop Telling Law Enforcement Which Users Were Near a Crime

Submitted ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨L4s@lemmy.world [bot]⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-stop-telling-law-enforcement-001953651.html

Google Will Stop Telling Law Enforcement Which Users Were Near a Crime::(Bloomberg) – Alphabet Inc.’s Google is changing its Maps tool so that the company no longer has access to users’ individual location histories, cutting off its ability to respond to law enforcement warrants that ask for data on everyone who was in the vicinity of a crime.Most Read from BloombergNetanyahu, Under Pressure Over Hostage Deaths, Vows to Press OnMike Johnson May Be the Next House Speaker to Lose His Job‘Underwater’ Car Loans Signal US Consumers Slammed by High RatesUS Navy Shoots Do

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

glowie@h4x0r.host ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There must have been an operational bottleneck with handling the LEOs requests that they decided to prevent the data requested from even existing in order to not be able to reply to such requests. Surely this came down to business and not alturism.

source
- oDDmON@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I doubt operational bottlenecks were the issue, more likely the rising volume of requests made Google reassess the policy.
  
  LEOs already press the boundaries of the permissible, and as much as I hate giving props to the big G, good on Google for taking the initiative.
  
  source
  - givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Cops only investigate people they think are guilty, and despite being objectively terrible at their jobs, they have ridiculous amounts of self confidence.
    
    So to them, if they suspect someone of a crime, they can “bend” any rules for stuff like this because “the suspect is clearly guilty anyways, we just don’t have proof”.
    
    source
  - odelik@lemmy.today ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Wouldn’t the inability to process the volume of request from LEOs be an apt example of an operational bottleneck?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Surely this came down to business and not alturism.
  
  These are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideals.
  
  From time to time businesses will do things that actually benefit their customers in order to keep their business.
  
  source
- topinambour_rex@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Or self preservation.
  
  source
Sanyanov@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Regardless of low you look at it, this is great news.

It’s not a reason to switch back to Google indeed, but people inside this ecosystem just got a little less surveillance.

source
3TH4Li4@feddit.ch ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Aha. For sure they won’t do that anymore. Nah I won’t buy it.

source
- random65837@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Then you don’t grasp what’s happening, You think the Goog wants to be in the middle of that shit? That’s time and resources that don’t benefit them. Providing that data puts them in a bad spot Everytime, simply not having the data to provide obsoloves them of that and is in both their and the end users best interest. The push getting worse is because current Stingrays don’t work on 5G, so the internal police spying is very limited now, and getting location records from telcos requires more of a papertrail than going to Google and Apple in the past, and when cops are asking for shit they don’t really need, they don’t want to be in the books for it.
  
  source
  - CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You said a lot without saying a lot
    
    What id ahppening that google doesnt want to be in the middle of?
    
    Also, didnt know that about stingrays, might have to finally upgrade my 4G phone now. Thanks for that
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - ruplicant@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    i get what you’re saying, but you did not mention the benefit Google itself got from that data, that they’ll have to forfeit so that they won’t be able to provide it to the police
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
otter@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Well that’s an odd and inflammatory headline to use for the issue

source
- mosiacmango@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Not really. Google us making this change so they have no way to share incidental bystanders location data when its requested/demanded by law enforcement. This change is occuring after the feature made headline news because of how google was cooperating with police to provide this data.
  
  source
  - NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Wow, surprising that for once Apple is the good guy here. There’s a good reason this is a bad idea, and it’s not reallt hard to see why. Circumstantial evidence isn’t evidence of an actual crime for a reason.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
As usual, I have to scroll down more than a page to get past all the generic “Google bad” comments to see any discussion of the topic at hand. Never change, Lemmy.

source
- Mango@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Nice contribution yourself asshole.
  
  source
- echodot@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  What you’re looking for is effective moderation. It would be nice wouldn’t it.
  
  source
  - 3TH4Li4@feddit.ch ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    If you’re looking for an echochamber that is. Just accept that people can have different opinions and views. Besides if you’re a technical person you would know the amount of bullshit and mistrust there is.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments